Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behaviors: it never calls external geocoding (only consults the loaded place-name table), marks coordinate results without confirmed administrative district as 'estimated', and returns relevance=low when all params are empty. Nothing contradicts the annotations, and these added traits materially change what an agent should expect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first line and the parameter rules are clearly marked with ★, with line breaks grouping call ordering, downstream routing, param precedence, and quality flags. It is mildly dense and briefly repeats the read-only annotation, but every section carries operational content an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given three optional params with precedence rules, a routing integration touching four sibling tools, and an output schema that accounts for the return shape, the description covers everything non-obvious: trigger conditions, exclusions, coordinate-estimation caveats, and the geocoding constraint. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, and the description adds real operational rules on top of it: region is examined first and wins when both region and lat/lng are given, region must match a registered name or alias, and all-empty inputs degrade to relevance=low. The schema already conveys that lat/lng are fallbacks, so the uplift is meaningful but not absolute.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first line states a specific transformation — place names/coordinates into climate·culture·jurisdiction conditions ('지명·좌표를 기후·문화·관할 조건으로 바다') — which is a distinct verb+resource. It differentiates from siblings by declaring itself the first tool to call when site context is mentioned and by delimiting what it does not do (no figures, no drawing review), so an agent can distinguish it from k_snippets and review_plan without opening their schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: call this before other tools when site/region/administrative-district/coordinates are mentioned, then route the returned scope to k_snippets·answer_why and jurisdiction to review_plan. It also states exclusions — figures belong to k_snippets, drawing review to review_plan — leaving no ambiguity about when to select this tool versus its siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.